Cpusa

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Communist Party of the United States of America, are these guys any good? worth my time? I need something to be an anchor (like an organisation or something) what do you think?

[Atlanta]

It depends what your politics are to decide if you would find them a waste of time.

do you:

support the democratic party aginst what they consider the radical republican right wing (bush and co)?

think that the 1930`s no strike pledge and 1940`s Japanese internment are justified for the us war effort in WW2?

If you answerd no to the following you should move on.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

In that case I suppose I should move on, in this I will now ask a different question.

:What would be the Best American (aka U.S.A.) Socialist/Communist Party to follow?

[Die Neue Zeit]

A class-strugglist anarchist accepting the need for party-ness is a good thing; try the SP-USA. :)

http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html

[thinkerOFthoughts]

lol thanks :) I will check them out :)

In the meantime what about these guys? http://rcyb.info/atlanta/

[Die Neue Zeit]

Stay away from that youth wing of the Avakianite cult.

[Q]

Because you're asking, I'll point out Socialist Alternative (http://www.socialistalternative.org/) as a possibly interesting organisation.

[Asoka89]

Socialist Party USA, Solidarity and Freedom Road (NOT the stalinist splinter, the main one) are all great choices. I'm looking forward to the Left Refoundation project taking off and these groups merging.

SPUSA is multi-tendency, Solidarity is post-trot, Freedom Road post-maoist.

Personally I'm with the Democratic Socialist of America, because YDS (ydsusa.org) their youth section is active, check out http://theactivist.org if you want some analysis.

[griffjam]

fuck parties

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Stay away from that youth wing of the Avakianite cult.

whys that?

[Atlanta]

he was talking about the RCYB

[Q]

fuck parties

But but...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/87875364_718b8e0b99.jpg

[thinkerOFthoughts]

he was talking about the RCYB

yeah I know, i was wondering why i should stay away?

[grok]

Communist Party of the United States of America, are these guys any good? worth my time? I need something to be an anchor (like an organisation or something) what do you think?

The CPUSA is so far up the bunghole of the U.S. Democratic Party, it's positively pornographic. Brownnosing simply won't do, you see. As with most of the old stalinist parties worldwide -- or what's left of them, rather -- clearly the honorable thing to do would be to simply liquidate themselves into the petit-bourgeois Left milieu they've hog-tied themselves to, and be done with it. However, opportunists such as these would rather continue to drag the rest of the Left down -- as they are now doing in many countries, as we write -- rather than give up their spurious claim to a wider commie 'brand recognition'. After all: most people still think essentially "CP[USA]" (i.e. old pro-Soviet satellite Party in any country) -- when they think "communist" at all, right? And these stalinist opportunists are banking on just such lowest-common-denominator thinking as this, in their philistine hopes and calculations for some sort of 'comeback'.

But fat chance that, eh? AFAIC they're going down for the count with their corrupt social-democrat and union central buddies, come the Revolution. They are finished -- as has been their erstwhile patron, the CCCP Apparatus, for some time now. Too bad these political undead don't choose to admit to anyone -- least of all themselves -- that they're stinking up the place. To the trash tip with them. It's OVER.

[grok]

fuck parties

This may be difficult for anarchists to accept (but I'll try logical persuasion yet one more time): but without parties, komrad, the working-class will NEVER be organized enuff to overthrow the HIGHLY organized capitalist class -- which BTW makes DAMNED sure it has LOTS of parties at its disposal (including communist ones, for that matter. But that's another discussion thread).
:rolleyes:

[revolution inaction]

thinkerOFthoughts if your really an anarchist you'd probably be better off getting involved with one of the anarchist organizations in america or the IWW rather than the leninist organizations recommended by the other posters.

[revolution inaction]

This may be difficult for anarchists to accept (but I'll try logical persuasion yet one more time): but without parties, komrad, the working-class will NEVER be organized enuff to overthrow the HIGHLY organized capitalist class -- which BTW makes DAMNED sure it has LOTS of parties at its disposal (including communist ones, for that matter. But that's another discussion thread).
:rolleyes:

this only makes sense if you call any form of organization a party, which most of us don't.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

thinkerOFthoughts if your really an anarchist you'd probably be better off getting involved with one of the anarchist organizations in america or the IWW rather than the leninist organizations recommended by the other posters.

mmmmk. what are some?

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Zeus the Moose]

mmmmk. what are some?

I think NEFAC (North Eastern Federation of Anarchist Communists) at least used to have a group in Burlington, so depending on where you are in Vermont, you might find them interesting.

I'd like to make another plug for the SP-USA, though. We are a multi-tendency organisation, and do have comrades who consider themselves anarchists (or otherwise libertarian socialists) as members. The political perspective of members tends to vary from local to local. So if you were to join the SP, it's not like you'd be the only anarchist-oriented member. Still, I'd recommend reading some of the basic documents to get a sense of what the SP is about (something to do for any org you're looking at).

[Invincible Summer]

This may be difficult for anarchists to accept (but I'll try logical persuasion yet one more time): but without parties, komrad, the working-class will NEVER be organized enuff to overthrow the HIGHLY organized capitalist class -- which BTW makes DAMNED sure it has LOTS of parties at its disposal (including communist ones, for that matter. But that's another discussion thread).
:rolleyes:

It depends on how you define "party." One that runs for executive office? Fuck that shit and throw it out the window.

[Asoka89]

Yeah like I said I'm not in any of the groups I recommended. Solidarity, SPUSA or FRSO if you trend a bit Maoist... all great choices.

[Circle E Society]

Get involved with NEAN(North east Anarchist network). Theyre an awesome group that I'm sure has a subgroup in you area. Parties to an anarchist should be friends, bands, food, and drink not selling newspapers and supporting the democratic party.

[crashmcbean]

The CPUSA indeed has a long, proud history. They've survived government attacks again and again; they've made a profound mark on American society and working class struggles. I imagine more than a few are members just to honor their history. But their current slavish devotion to the Democrats is bewildering. Webb has a fairly logical way of explaining why they're on this path, but it simply doesn't gel with Marxism. (Interestingly enough, while they proclaim their reformist goals there's quotations from Lenin and Marx on their site somewhere that point out how such attempts are futile.)
Hopefully the CPUSA will reverse course, but it will take true Marxists joining and pushing for it and not getting expelled in the process. Imagine...joining the Communist Party and being expelled for refusing to support capitalists. Has it sunk this far?

[MAVA]

But but...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/37/87875364_718b8e0b99.jpg
Ain't nuttin but a Communist party

[griffjam]

The CPUSA indeed has a long, proud history. They've survived government attacks again and again; they've made a profound mark on American society and working class struggles. I imagine more than a few are members just to honor their history. But their current slavish devotion to the Democrats is bewildering. Webb has a fairly logical way of explaining why they're on this path, but it simply doesn't gel with Marxism. (Interestingly enough, while they proclaim their reformist goals there's quotations from Lenin and Marx on their site somewhere that point out how such attempts are futile.)
Hopefully the CPUSA will reverse course, but it will take true Marxists joining and pushing for it and not getting expelled in the process. Imagine...joining the Communist Party and being expelled for refusing to support capitalists. Has it sunk this far?

During the cold war 1/3 of all due paying members were working for the FBI.

[KurtFF8]

The CPUSA is a club to support the Democratic Party of America. I once visited their main HQ and most of them actually had Obama pins on.

They may be well intentioned but they certainly put too much weight on the idea that the Dems are a little better than the GOP. It's one thing to recognize that the labor struggle may find a bit of an easier time under a Democratic government, but to openly support that party and try to get it elected is more harmful to the working class movement, especially if it is to be independent of bourgeois politics (something the CPUSA doesn't quite get for some reason, an odd fact considering its origins).

One party that has some potential is the Party for Socialism and Liberation (pslweb.org). They help run the ANSWER coalition.

[Martin Blank]

Communist Party of the United States of America, are these guys any good? worth my time? I need something to be an anchor (like an organisation or something) what do you think?

If you're working class, you can join the Workers Party in America (http://www.workers-party.com/).

[Die Neue Zeit]

My apologies for not having pointed out the WPA earlier. :(

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Crux]

Let the dead bury the dead.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Crux]

Open for discussion and unity of action is the tenet of democratic centralism.
Unfortunatly that's not something "marxist-leninist" parties tend to follow.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

You can also stick to anarchism/libertarian communism and avoid Leninist and reformist parties. *shrugs* I've found marxist groups in America are typically depressing affairs.

[Pogue]

I stopped liking them when I read an article in Morning Star in which they said they supported Obama.

They're Eurocomms of a kind, although obviously they're not in Europe. They're reformist, social democrats who pay lip service to communism as an end product.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Thanks guys for all the suggestions :) I will enjoy looking into them.



Stay away from that youth wing of the Avakianite cult.

I have not received a answer on this yet, I have become fairly curious, as to why I should stay away from the youth wing of the Avakinite "cult" Is their something they are doing that is wrong or something? thanks.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[thinkerOFthoughts]

they actually like "worship" him? or do they just hold him in an unusually high regard?

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Not like think hes a diety but hold him as their infallible leader.

ahhhh so more like their own Pope :laugh:

[The Idler]

this only makes sense if you call any form of organization a party, which most of us don't.
This is the point I was trying to make in the List of Left-Wing Parties in the UK thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1353192&postcount=10). There are some anarchist "organizations" more organized at overthrowing capitalism than some communist "parties". "Organizations" and "parties" can sometimes just be a matter of semantics. Its pointless to exclude anarchist organizations from any list just because they shun the term "party". They go on protests, campaign, have a full political platform (unlike single-issue groups), produce propaganda, get involved in unions, have meetings and discussions. They might not win US election campaigns (because they don't want to) but then neither do any other left-wing "parties" at the moment so what is the difference?

[Kassad]

Completely worthless and revisionist organization. I haven't seen any notable activism from them in a long time and they don't attempt to use the bourgeoisie elections to their advantage. Basically, they exist. They don't promote youth or adult activism and do not participate in any currently existing movements.

Try the Party for Socialism and Liberation (www.PSLWeb.org).

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Completely worthless and revisionist organization. I haven't seen any notable activism from them in a long time and they don't attempt to use the bourgeoisie elections to their advantage. Basically, they exist. They don't promote youth or adult activism and do not participate in any currently existing movements.

Try the Party for Socialism and Liberation (www.PSLWeb.org (http://www.PSLWeb.org)).

Erm aren't they the same sillyheads who think the invasion of Hungary was a good idea?

[Kassad]

Erm aren't they the same sillyheads who think the invasion of Hungary was a good idea?

Workers World, which the Party for Socialism and Liberation split from, advocated that. The Party has never come out in support of the suppression in Hungary and the subsequent consequences. Narrow-minded critics like to claim such a thing, though.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Workers World, which the Party for Socialism and Liberation split from, advocated that. The Party has never come out in support of the suppression in Hungary and the subsequent consequences. Narrow-minded critics like to claim such a thing, though.

Well it is difficult to keep track of yall, with all the splits and stuff.

[Kassad]

Well it is difficult to keep track of yall, with all the splits and stuff.

Go to the main website (www.PSLWeb.org (http://www.PSLWeb.org)) or the election-time website (www.VotePSL.org (http://www.VotePSL.org)) and read up on our purpose, activities and ideology. We are a Marxist-Leninist party that advocates revolutionary socialism and those who criticize us usually have little ground to stand on. The Party, along with the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition that the Party maintains, has organized just about every anti-war, anti-racism, pro-worker and anti-police brutality demonstration since September the 11th. There is no larger group of commited activists working towards education and emancipation to be found.

[crashmcbean]

My suggestion is that Marxist-Leninists instead of just criticizing the CPUSA, they join and work to change it. Fight to save the party, its not a massive party where this is impossible, but it isn't without sincere difficulties. The fight to save the CPUSA is a fight for American socialism.
Yes openly defying party line is against the party but internal discussion and criticism is not.
Open for discussion and unity of action is the tenet of democratic centralism.

I see your point, and it's a good one. The problem, though, is that with the capitalist economy destroying us more each day, who has enough money to spend on dues with a fight that could reasonably take years to see through. I know that I have very very little disposable income. And to give about $95 (dues and their paper) to an organization that is actively fighting for the interests of the Democrats, a party that has helped put us in this mess...I think my family needs the money more than Obama.
If somehow real Communists could band together before joining with a viable plan to return the party to it's Marxist-Leninist roots I'd be all for it.

[Crux]

I don't think entryism into CPUSA is really the way forward though. there needs to be a convergence of leftforces that isn't dependent on teh democrats. Indeed what needs to be founded is a massbased worker's party.

[griffjam]

Vanguard
by David Rovics

Worker's World says that they have all the answers
And Milosevic is a guy that they admire
The ISO says Trotsky is the man
And they'll debate it until they all expire
The industrial workers will lead the revolution
So claims the SWP
No, the truth lies among the lumpen
That's the RCP

The Sparts say the rest can go to hell
And everyone else is a Stalinist
The CP will just do their thing
And pretend the others don't exist
Well I had a realization this morning
When I looked into the red and dawning sun
I've figured out the truth
And I'm forming a party of one

(Chorus)
I am the leader of the workers
And I'll tell you why the Left is circumspect
Because there's something you don't understand
Only my line is correct
'Cause I am the vanguard of the masses
And all of you should just follow me
If you doubt my analysis
You must be in the petty bourgeoisie

But I am not sectarian
It's all the rest who are
I work fine in coalitions
As long as I'm the shining star
So bow down to your master
The latest V.I. Lenin
And off to the camps to all of you
Who'd say, "not this again"

'Cause I am the leader of the workers...
...I'll fill your head with propaganda 'til you agree

And I'll have no music at my protests
And none of that goddamn puppetry
I'll just have some somber slogans
No decadent frivolity
My chants will be the right ones
Just the ones that should be said
And my banners we'll wave proudly
Just the proper shade of red

And I will build the party if it kills me
I am solely dedicated to the cause
If I have to stab you in the back
This won't give me pause
'Cause my platform will take us forward
And the ends always justify the means
And you must step aside behind me
Be you Quakers, Jews, anarchists or greens

'Cause I am the leader of the workers...
...I'll make sure that you agree

[Eastside Revolt]

If you are looking to get involved in something, anything, find an organization working around an issue in your area.

If it turns out that there are no groups with even a remotely revolutionary analysis in your area, then the best thing to do is move the fuck on.......To a larger city.

Decentralized organizations are bests for newcomers because it provides you with a better understanding of how to act on your own and think for yourself.

The last thing you should ever do is join a communist or socialist party. They will kill your spirit, and turn you into a cookie-cutter activist at best.

Do you want to be someone who just stands with a placard?

Maybe do you want to find all sorts of rhetorical and defeatist reasons for being unable to be an agent of change? for needing a leader?

If you answered yes to those questions join a communist party today.:lol:

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[griffjam]

There are a million of those "new" left groups who do a bunch of actions in an isolated way. If you want to talk about defeatism, just look at the amount of random activist groups around.


Consumer society fills our heads with slogans such as "bigger is better," and "quantity over quality," and "strength in numbers." It should come as no surprise that the dream of a bigger and better mass movement is so prevalent among radicals of all stripes. We should not forget how much creativity, vitality, and innovations has come from those who resist being assimilated. Many times it is the tiny group that scorns the mainstream that makes the most fantastic discoveries. Whether indigenous peasants in Chiapas or a gawky kid in high school, these are the folks that refuse to be another face in the crowd.

The desire to achieve mass leads to many dysfunctional behaviors and decisions. Perhaps the most insidious is the urge to water down our politics in order to gain popular support. This all-too-common tendency leads to bland, homogeneous campaigns that are the political equivalents of the professionally printed signs we see at so many protests and rallies, monotonously repeating the dogma of the organizers' message. Despite the lip service paid to local struggles and campaigns, these are only useful to a dinosaur if they can be tied into (consumed by) the mass. The diversity of tactics and messages that come easily with heterogeneous groups must be smoothed out and compromised to focus an easily digested slogan, or goal. In this nightmare, our message and actions simply become a means to increase registration rolls, to fill protest pens, or add signatories on calls to action: all measures of mass.

[thinkerOFthoughts]

Thank you very much guys! I have made a decision. As soon as I read enough books and get a really good grasp on my Ideology, and pass the stage of being some guy shouting "REVOLUTION" and not being able to tell someone about it when asked about it, I will just start up my own local Anarchist group (maybe just a plain revolutionary left group in general, after all we are all pretty much fighting for the same thing)

[KC]

Workers World, which the Party for Socialism and Liberation split from, advocated that. The Party has never come out in support of the suppression in Hungary and the subsequent consequences. Narrow-minded critics like to claim such a thing, though.

The split was not based on ideological lines, which is what you are trying to imply here. It is safe to assume that the PSL holds the same line with regards to the Hungarian situation as the WWP.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thank you very much guys! I have made a decision. As soon as I read enough books and get a really good grasp on my Ideology, and pass the stage of being some guy shouting "REVOLUTION" and not being able to tell someone about it when asked about it, I will just start up my own local Anarchist group (maybe just a plain revolutionary left group in general, after all we are all pretty much fighting for the same thing)

You don't "fight for the same thing" effectively by starting yet another pointless circle-sect. :(

[Circle E Society]

Thank you very much guys! I have made a decision. As soon as I read enough books and get a really good grasp on my Ideology, and pass the stage of being some guy shouting "REVOLUTION" and not being able to tell someone about it when asked about it, I will just start up my own local Anarchist group (maybe just a plain revolutionary left group in general, after all we are all pretty much fighting for the same thing)
Living in Vermont I'm sure there are already plenty of anarchist groups but if youre going to start your own you may consider becoming a part of NEAN.:thumbup1:

[The Idler]

Living in Vermont I'm sure there are already plenty of anarchist groups but if youre going to start your own you may consider becoming a part of NEAN.:thumbup1:
You could just go to lots of different groups meetings.

[Kassad]

The split was not based on ideological lines, which is what you are trying to imply here. It is safe to assume that the PSL holds the same line with regards to the Hungarian situation as the WWP.

The problem is that you have no source or justification to support your claim, so your point is irrelevant.

[KC]

The problem is that you have no source or justification to support your claim, so your point is irrelevant.My source/justification to support my claim is the entire body of work of both organizations.

Perhaps, though, you could explain how WWP and PSL are ideologically distinct, as I asked you to do before and you did not? Or perhaps you could explain how the split was ideologically based (which we both know is not true)?

I have asked numerous PSL members about this and nobody has been able to give me an answer aside from "organizational/personal differences". So perhaps you can set the record straight.

EDIT: Regarding the Hungarian situation, I can save us both some time in debating this.


After he and Laura Bush laid a wreath at the 1956 Memorial Monument, he addressed the people of Hungary. “In 1956,” he said, “the Hungarian people suffered under a communist dictatorship and domination by a foreign power. That fall, the Hungarian people had decided they had had enough and demanded change.

“In 1989,” he continued, “a new generation of Hungarians returned to the streets to demand their liberty, and boldly helped others secure their freedom. … Because you had the courage to lead, Hungary became the first communist nation in Europe to make the transition to democracy.”

That version of the 1956 events in Hungary has been so often repeated in big business media and academia that it is accepted as gospel. Given the anti-communist atmosphere surrounding the celebrations, any class-conscious worker would be skeptical that the uprising was really so positive. The same capitalist politicians, media and academia never portray genuine uprisings of working people in their own interests in such glowing terms.

...

The 1956 uprising in Hungary was one outcome of a long series of attempts—some successful, some not successful—by the U.S. rulers and their allies to bring about reactionary “regime change” in countries that had undergone social and political transformations unfavorable to their interests.

...

While each of these instances had particularities, they shared a common feature. In all cases, legitimate grievances on the part of the working classes were exploited and channeled into counterrevolutionary movements. Absent a clear anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist leadership, such a degeneration is inevitable in a world dominated by imperialism.

Socialism & Liberation (http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=703)

Thus, we see in the Party's own words their opposition to the "counterrevolutionary movement" in Hungary, alongside their revisionary attempt to paint the uprising as orchestrated by "the U.S. rulers and their allies" for the goal of "bring[ing] about reactionary 'regime change.'"

We can see this same view expressed by WWP in their paper:


Why did George W. Bush just send New York Gov. George Pataki to Budapest to praise the 1956 uprising of the “Hungarian freedom fighters”?


...



A “secret speech” by Nikita Khrushchev at the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in February 1956 denounced Stalin—but from the right, seeking an accommodation with the imperialists. It gave a green light to pro-capitalist elements throughout Eastern Europe.


In October Imre Nagy became Hungary’s premier and opened the door to reaction—in the same way that Mikhail Gorbachev later did in the USSR.


Workers had grievances in Hungary. But their discontent was misused in a bloody struggle that was welcomed by Wall Street.


...



The Soviet Union was compelled to send in troops to stop this counter-revolution.


The reaction was thrown back. The first job of new Communist leader János Kádár, who himself had been imprisoned under a previous Communist regime, was winning back the workers. A workers’ militia was formed.

...

All this shows why it was important to defend the Hungarian workers’ state in 1956 and stop the right wing. The counter-revolutionaries had masqueraded as friends of the workers, just as Hitler had disguised his reactionary program as “national socialism.” But in fact they were totally allied with world imperialism and, as partners of global monopoly capital, were ready to exploit the workers doubly.

Workers World (http://www.workers.org/2006/world/hungary-1116/)


These positions are identical; both organizations are complicit in this attempt at historical revisionism.

[Honggweilo]

Vanguard
by David Rovics

Worker's World says that they have all the answers
And Milosevic is a guy that they admire
The ISO says Trotsky is the man
And they'll debate it until they all expire
The industrial workers will lead the revolution
So claims the SWP
No, the truth lies among the lumpen
That's the RCP

The Sparts say the rest can go to hell
And everyone else is a Stalinist
The CP will just do their thing
And pretend the others don't exist
Well I had a realization this morning
When I looked into the red and dawning sun
I've figured out the truth
And I'm forming a party of one

(Chorus)
I am the leader of the workers
And I'll tell you why the Left is circumspect
Because there's something you don't understand
Only my line is correct
'Cause I am the vanguard of the masses
And all of you should just follow me
If you doubt my analysis
You must be in the petty bourgeoisie

But I am not sectarian
It's all the rest who are
I work fine in coalitions
As long as I'm the shining star
So bow down to your master
The latest V.I. Lenin
And off to the camps to all of you
Who'd say, "not this again"

'Cause I am the leader of the workers...
...I'll fill your head with propaganda 'til you agree

And I'll have no music at my protests
And none of that goddamn puppetry
I'll just have some somber slogans
No decadent frivolity
My chants will be the right ones
Just the ones that should be said
And my banners we'll wave proudly
Just the proper shade of red

And I will build the party if it kills me
I am solely dedicated to the cause
If I have to stab you in the back
This won't give me pause
'Cause my platform will take us forward
And the ends always justify the means
And you must step aside behind me
Be you Quakers, Jews, anarchists or greens

'Cause I am the leader of the workers...
...I'll make sure that you agree
I'm a better anarchist then you
By David Rovics

i don't drive a car
'cause they run on gas
but if i did
it'd run on biomass
i ride a bike
or sometimes a skateboard
so fuck off all you drivers
and your yuppie hordes
sitting all day
in the traffic queues
i'm a better anarchist than you

i don't eat meat
i just live on moldy chives
or the donuts that i found
in last week's dumpster dives
look at you people in that restaurant
i think you are so sad
when you coulda been eating bagels
like the ones that i just had
i think it is a shame
all the bourgeois things you do
i'm a better anarchist than you

i don't wear leather
and i like my clothes in black
and i made a really cool hammock
from a moldy coffee sack
i like to hop on freight trains
i think that is so cool
it's so much funner doing this
than being stuck in school
i can't believe you're wearing
those brand new shiny shoes
i'm a better anarchist than you

i don't have sex
and there will be no sequel
because heterosexual relationships
are inherently unequal
i'll just keep moshing
to anti-flag and crass
until there are no differences
in gender, race or class
all you brainwashed breeders
you just haven't got a clue
i'm a better anarchist than you

i am not a pacifist
i like throwing bricks
and when the cops have caught me
and i've taken a few licks
i always feel lucky
if i get a bloody nose
'cause i feel so militant
and everybody knows
by the time
the riot is all through
i'm a better anarchist than you

i don't believe in leaders
i think consensus is the key
i don't believe is stupid notions
like representative democracy
whether or not it works
i know it is the case
that only direct action
can save the human race
so when i see you in your voting booths
then i know it's true
i'm a better anarchist than you

[Kassad]

My source/justification to support my claim is the entire body of work of both organizations.

Perhaps, though, you could explain how WWP and PSL are ideologically distinct, as I asked you to do before and you did not? Or perhaps you could explain how the split was ideologically based (which we both know is not true)?

I have asked numerous PSL members about this and nobody has been able to give me an answer aside from "organizational/personal differences". So perhaps you can set the record straight.

Okay... back here again. Until the Party for Socialism and Liberation comes out and condones the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, your assertions are baseless. Like I said and you continually ignored, the point of our party is not to be dogmatic. Our platform doesn't rest on specific issues. We are a united group of Marxist-Leninists. I'm sure some people support the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, but does that mean the entire Party for Socialism and Liberation does? No. Don't be narrow-minded.

As I've stated before, whatever the reason for the split, it was splendid. Workers World was not properly mobilizing the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, its volunteers or its abilities properly. No one besides some of the central members of the Party (Like Gloria La Riva) knows the reason for the split, but for the last time, it is totally irrelevant. Ideological disputes likely occured and the Party for Socialism and Liberation has left Workers World far behind.

If our answers are not good enough for you, I apologize, but specifics have not yet been provided. Of course, they're so important, compared to community activism, organization and education. The Party is active in anti-bigotry, anti-imperialist and pro-workers action consistently, but I'll be sure to request we halt all our actions until a proper reason is give for the split.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[KC]

Until the Party for Socialism and Liberation comes out and condones the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, your assertions are baseless.I have already shown that they condone it; it is represented as a "capitalist counterrevolution" for the purpose of bringing about "reactionary 'regime change.'" With that being said, there are only two positions that PSL can take: support of the "capitalist counterrevolution" or support of the "defense" against such a "counterrevolution".

Either you are counterrevolutionary bourgeois apologists or you support the suppression.


I'm sure some people support the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, but does that mean the entire Party for Socialism and Liberation does? No. Don't be narrow-minded.I never assumed as such, and have no delusions about any party being monolithic. However, there is a difference between what some party members believe and what is published in your publications. This is why I am able to argue from this stance.

You can go on claiming that I'm "being narrow-minded" all you like, but it would really do both of us a service if you could point to an article in Socialism & Liberation that states the opposite. I think we both know how that search will end up.


As I've stated before, whatever the reason for the split, it was splendid. Workers World was not properly mobilizing the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, its volunteers or its abilities properly. No one besides some of the central members of the Party (Like Gloria La Riva) knows the reason for the split, but for the last time, it is totally irrelevant. Ideological disputes likely occured and the Party for Socialism and Liberation has left Workers World far behind.Except ideologically, which I have shown with the example of the Hungarian situation.

Perhaps you could ask some other comrades in your organization and find out why it happened? I really would like to know.


If our answers are not good enough for you, I apologize, but specifics have not yet been provided. Of course, they're so important, compared to community activism, organization and education. The Party is active in anti-bigotry, anti-imperialist and pro-workers action consistently, but I'll be sure to request we halt all our actions until a proper reason is give for the split.I wasn't requesting as such, and your attempt to paint me as a sectarian here are as poor as Britton's attempt at historical revisionism. Of course, if finding out why something so important and profound as an organizational split happened takes so much of your time, maybe you should be asking yourself why that is.

[Kassad]

Everybody, freeze! It's in the Party's magazine, so it must be a widespread accepted dogma that anyone who is in the Party for Socialism and Liberation must believe! Socialism and Liberation is meant to be an educational magazine that presents the viewpoints of members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. It's like saying that a Democratic Senator wrote in a newspaper that he is pro-choice. Does that mean the Democratic Party represents that ideology in a dogmatic manner? Don't be ridiculous. I'm sure that capitalist counterrevolution had a significant contribution in Hungary, as it did in revolutionary states across Europe and Asia. I can't say I condone military suppression of the Revolution, but ask yourself this. Did the United States and their Western allies have a lot to gain from the Soviet Union losing control of its supporters? Nations have the right to self-determination, so the invasion was wrong in my eyes, but it's not wrong to take a middle ground and observe that there are facts from both sides that need to be observed. So by your theory that there's only two sides to each argument, as shown by your claim that I either support suppression or the bourgeoisie, then you either support American imperialism and American interests or you support the Soviet suppression. Makes sense, right?

Again with the assumed dogma. Unless it's in the Party's platform, I don't see it as dogmatic, as we are a diverse group of individuals. If a significant majority of the Party supports the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, then maybe we can discuss that, but there's no proof of that. We reject dogma. Sorry if that doesn't support your argument, but I guess facts hurt.

This rambling and these ridiculous assertions could go on forever. You seem to view all publications of Socialism and Liberaton as dogmatic, when in truth, they are just presenting theories and ideologies, in the interest of education. It doesn't mean you have to believe it to be a member. It's just an opinion of someone in the Party who happens to believe something. Again, I'm terribly sorry that you view all statements from any party as dogmatic claims that must be supported, but that's your prerogative.

[KC]

Everybody, freeze! It's in the Party's magazine, so it must be a widespread accepted dogma that anyone who is in the Party for Socialism and Liberation must believe! Socialism and Liberation is meant to be an educational magazine that presents the viewpoints of members of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. It's like saying that a Democratic Senator wrote in a newspaper that he is pro-choice. Does that mean the Democratic Party represents that ideology in a dogmatic manner?

The difference, of course, is that I can easily point to other members of the democratic party that hold different positions on the matter, and that this matter is open to debate within the democratic party; this, of course, is why I asked you to show me an article with an opposing opinion to the one I already posted. Can you do that?

If there is a significant section of the party that believes otherwise, then there should at least be one article regarding the subject, or perhaps even one addressing why the one posted above is incorrect. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to that effect.


My previous post:


You can go on claiming that I'm "being narrow-minded" all you like, but it would really do both of us a service if you could point to an article in Socialism & Liberation that states the opposite. I think we both know how that search will end up.


I'm sure that capitalist counterrevolution had a significant contribution in Hungary, as it did in revolutionary states across Europe and Asia. I can't say I condone military suppression of the Revolution, but ask yourself this. Did the United States and their Western allies have a lot to gain from the Soviet Union losing control of its supporters? Nations have the right to self-determination, so the invasion was wrong in my eyes, but it's not wrong to take a middle ground and observe that there are facts from both sides that need to be observed. So by your theory that there's only two sides to each argument, as shown by your claim that I either support suppression or the bourgeoisie, then you either support American imperialism and American interests or you support the Soviet suppression. Makes sense, right?

I think you missed my point. The belief that there are only "two sides" to this event is the position of Britton and not myself. I was taking Britton's assertion to its conclusion (which is why I said "with that being said") and exposing it for how ridiculous it is. Of course, this assertion is commonly put forward by PSL members, yourself being but one example (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1347435&postcount=69).

You have also yet to address my inquiry as to how WWP and PSL are ideologically distinct from one another.

[Kassad]

I don't need an article. I can tell you from personal experience, such as through Party for Socialism and Liberation study groups and meetings, that there are multiple mixed opinions on a multitude of issues. The best example I can provide is regarding Joseph Stalin. There are a lot of people in the Party who have an inredibly critical view of Stalin, to the extent of disposition. Others have immense respect for him. This is one of many examples and I'm sorry that I can't point these out, since the Party is not significantly large and discussions and debates are not posted for everyone to find. I can't find an example that some members of the Party for Socialis mand Liberation are critical of Hugo Chavez, like myself, but the publications from the Party are very supportive of him. Just because you view a party as dogmatic doesn't mean eveyone else does.

And with the consistent practice of putting words into my mouth, since I was telling you how ridiculous it was to paint only two sides in a situation, I think this discussion is about dead. Just because I support Hamas in its fight against Israel does not mean I'm saying 'my way or the highway', but I am saying that the assumption that a workers movement can accomplish a militant resistance of Israel is not feasible at the current time. You're way off.

[Eastside Revolt]

What the fuck are you talking about? Our party here in Canada does not stand around with placard, or have defeatist reasons for being unable to change or needing a leader. Or think there are cut and dried solutions. Each member of their club gets to have a say in the decision making process.

There are a million of those "new" left groups who do a bunch of actions in an isolated way. If you want to talk about defeatism, just look at the amount of random activist groups around.

At present The Communist Party of Canada does nothing but talk about "defeating the conservatives", while then turning around and engaging in the representative democratic process themselves.

"Random activist organizations" force people to understand the issues so that they can then change things themselves.

[Eastside Revolt]

Thank you very much guys! I have made a decision. As soon as I read enough books and get a really good grasp on my Ideology, and pass the stage of being some guy shouting "REVOLUTION" and not being able to tell someone about it when asked about it, I will just start up my own local Anarchist group (maybe just a plain revolutionary left group in general, after all we are all pretty much fighting for the same thing)

Right on buddy.

I still say it's best to learn from others first but if you have no other choice but to start your own thing then go for it.

[KC]

I don't need an article. I can tell you from personal experience, such as through Party for Socialism and Liberation study groups and meetings, that there are multiple mixed opinions on a multitude of issues. The best example I can provide is regarding Joseph Stalin. There are a lot of people in the Party who have an inredibly critical view of Stalin, to the extent of disposition. Others have immense respect for him. This is one of many examples and I'm sorry that I can't point these out, since the Party is not significantly large and discussions and debates are not posted for everyone to find. I can't find an example that some members of the Party for Socialis mand Liberation are critical of Hugo Chavez, like myself, but the publications from the Party are very supportive of him. Just because you view a party as dogmatic doesn't mean eveyone else does.

This was already addressed numerous times in previous posts. You're just repeating yourself.


And with the consistent practice of putting words into my mouth, since I was telling you how ridiculous it was to paint only two sides in a situation

This was addressed in my last post, as well:


I think you missed my point. The belief that there are only "two sides" to this event is the position of Britton and not myself. I was taking Britton's assertion to its conclusion (which is why I said "with that being said") and exposing it for how ridiculous it is. Of course, this assertion is commonly put forward by PSL members, yourself being but one example (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1347435&postcount=69).


Just because I support Hamas in its fight against Israel does not mean I'm saying 'my way or the highway', but I am saying that the assumption that a workers movement can accomplish a militant resistance of Israel is not feasible at the current time.

I'm not sure what you're talking about in the first part of this statement, and realize that you don't think a workers movement is "feasible" in Palestine "at the current time," which is what I have been addressing every time I discuss that issue.

Do you even read what you're responding to?

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Kassad]

Yes, and each time I read it, it is the same incompetent, irrelevant bile that either
a. Assumes the Party for Socialism and Liberation is dogmatic.
b. Puts words into my mouth.
c. Manages to bring up Hamas.

Now, do tell. Who has the reading comprehension issues here, as I've repeated myself a dozen times.

[KC]

Yes, and each time I read it, it is the same incompetent, irrelevant bile that either
a. Assumes the Party for Socialism and Liberation is dogmatic.


The difference, of course, is that I can easily point to other members of the democratic party that hold different positions on the matter, and that this matter is open to debate within the democratic party; this, of course, is why I asked you to show me an article with an opposing opinion to the one I already posted. Can you do that?

If there is a significant section of the party that believes otherwise, then there should at least be one article regarding the subject, or perhaps even one addressing why the one posted above is incorrect. I have yet to see a single shred of evidence to that effect.


I never assumed as such, and have no delusions about any party being monolithic. However, there is a difference between what some party members believe and what is published in your publications. This is why I am able to argue from this stance.

You can go on claiming that I'm "being narrow-minded" all you like, but it would really do both of us a service if you could point to an article in Socialism & Liberation that states the opposite. I think we both know how that search will end up.


b. Puts words into my mouth.

Where did I do this?

[griffjam]

http://www.counterpunch.org/rovics03252008.html


Excerpt:
But much more prevalent, and therefore much scarier, are groups like the ANSWER "Coalition." (I put "coalition" in quotes because I have yet to meet a member of a group that theoretically makes up the "coalition" that has had any say in what goes on at their rallies, although the leadership of ANSWER is of course happy to receive the bus-loads of people that their "coalition" members bring to their rallies, which seems to be the only thing that makes ANSWER a "coalition.") ANSWER, last I heard, is run by the ultra-left sectarian group known as the Worker's World Party, which I strongly suspect is working for the FBI. (Although as Ward Churchill says, you don't need to be a cop to do a cop's job.):laugh:

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[KurtFF8]

I'm surprised at the amount of hostility that one of the largest, most radical anti-war groups in the USA right now is getting on this forum.

[KC]

I'm surprised at the amount of hostility that one of the largest, most radical anti-war groups in the USA right now is getting on this forum.

I have done two things in this thread:

1. I have questioned the ideological distinction between WWP and PSL in general, and specifically with respect to the Hungarian situation.
2. I have questioned the reason why PSL members don't know why their own organization split (apparently only the leadership knows that).

Now, how that leads to me being "hostile" towards PSL is beyond me. I of course have been aggressive towards Kassad (and vice versa), but that is the nature of debate; discussions can become intense and energetic. I certainly wouldn't consider either of us to have actually been hostile to one another, nor unreasonable.

So in short, get off the cross. Me criticizing PSL does not mean that I am "against" them in some way, or that I take the moronic position of people like griffjam. In fact, it is quite clear (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1355816&postcount=40) where I stand on that discussion. Kassad tried this tactic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1356199&postcount=64) a few posts back and I addressed it with a similar response.

[Kassad]

And, as stated probably a dozen times, I am unaware of the ideological distinctions that led to the split between Workers World and the subsequent formulation of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. As stated already, I do not see it as relevant in any manner. I mean, is it wrong to assume that there were hostilities between party members that are personal affairs? If you see that as irrational, fine, but I don't see it as either relevant or necessary to discussion.

Also, I don't consider you being hostile towards the Party or myself. It's just a discussion. What I do think is happening is that you are falling under the false assumption that the Party for Socialism and Liberation is dogmatic. I'm sure the steering committee and the original members might agree en masse on certain issues, but that doesn't make it a part of the Party's platform. Our platform is based off of workers liberation, revolutionary socialism and bringing about revolutionary change. Petty and divisive issues are secondary to those. We are not dogmatic.

Assuming that everyone in the Party supports the repression of the Hungarian Revolution is ridiculous. I'm sure many do. I know the person who wrote the article does. Do I? Does everyone? No. Be rational.

[KC]

And, as stated probably a dozen times, I am unaware of the ideological distinctions that led to the split between Workers World and the subsequent formulation of the Party for Socialism and Liberation. As stated already, I do not see it as relevant in any manner. I mean, is it wrong to assume that there were hostilities between party members that are personal affairs? If you see that as irrational, fine, but I don't see it as either relevant or necessary to discussion.

I consider it relevant when party membership doesn't even know why the party would take such a profound action. It's very telling of party structure when communication on such an important issue is completely nonexistent.


Also, I don't consider you being hostile towards the Party or myself. It's just a discussion. What I do think is happening is that you are falling under the false assumption that the Party for Socialism and Liberation is dogmatic. I'm sure the steering committee and the original members might agree en masse on certain issues, but that doesn't make it a part of the Party's platform. Our platform is based off of workers liberation, revolutionary socialism and bringing about revolutionary change. Petty and divisive issues are secondary to those. We are not dogmatic.

I don't think the PSL is "dogmatic," nor do I think that it is monolithic, as I have stated a dozen times. In the past I have even stated that the PSL as a whole has no coherent ideology, and is founded in large part on a vague notion of anti-Americanism. However, I do believe that there is such thing as a general overarching ideology inherent within the PSL, perpetuated by the more "active" and "higher-up" members and consolidated in their publications.

From this general overarching ideology, certain conclusions are drawn regarding the analysis of specific situations. This is why I am able to put forward the assertion of the PSL position on the Hungarian situation. While some members might disagree with it, the general ideology of PSL leads to such conclusions. This is also evident in your position towards Hamas, which is why I brought that up.


Assuming that everyone in the Party supports the repression of the Hungarian Revolution is ridiculous. I'm sure many do. I know the person who wrote the article does. Do I? Does everyone? No. Be rational.

Straw man.

[KurtFF8]

The WWP supported Milosevic and hailed him as a hero, and while I haven't seen the PSL make such strange stances, the PSL did come out of the WWP so I wouldn't be surprised if some of the higher up membership of the PSL do take stances like that. That being said, the PSL is a different party, but I'm also unaware of why there was a split, perhaps someone who does know could give some insight.

[Kibbutznik]

While the CPUSA's support of bourgeois liberal candidates is abominable, I must stress that now is not the time to continue our sectarian antics. They have not served us well for the past half century, and they will not serve us any better in the future.

This dogmatic insistence of the superiority of one's own position permeates all left-wing groups, from Marxist-Leninists to DeLeonists to anarchists. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Divided against ourselves like this, we're going to only deepen our own irrelevance. What is needed are multi-tendency organizations that allow for a broader coalition of leftists to coexist and fight for common goals.

We can fight the battle for what particular form of socialism we want after we've won it. Until then, our plans and programmes can be broadly universalized.

[revolution inaction]

We can fight the battle for what particular form of socialism we want after we've won it. Until then, our plans and programmes can be broadly universalized.

how do you propose we win it then? cause thats what 99% of the disagreements are about.

[Kibbutznik]

how do you propose we win it then? cause thats what 99% of the disagreements are about.
The disagreement is caused because we all want to employ our tactics to the exclusion of others. However, there are some things we can all agree on. The first is the need for stronger, more politically conscious unions.

[KurtFF8]

While the CPUSA's support of bourgeois liberal candidates is abominable, I must stress that now is not the time to continue our sectarian antics. They have not served us well for the past half century, and they will not serve us any better in the future.

This dogmatic insistence of the superiority of one's own position permeates all left-wing groups, from Marxist-Leninists to DeLeonists to anarchists. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it. Divided against ourselves like this, we're going to only deepen our own irrelevance. What is needed are multi-tendency organizations that allow for a broader coalition of leftists to coexist and fight for common goals.

We can fight the battle for what particular form of socialism we want after we've won it. Until then, our plans and programmes can be broadly universalized.

Exactly my sentiments. While it may feel better to have more ideological coherence/cohesion by splitting off and forming your own little party from a bigger one, the movement you're trying to build suffers as a whole by the increased frequency of things like that happening. Nothing has been more proven within leftism than the fact that splits and fractures doom the success of the project to build socialism.

I also think that the CPUSA has quite an odd stance on the Democrats, but even though they are drawn to odd conclusions, they still do support Marxism-Leninism and while many will be quick to jump in and say "they wouldn't support the Dems if they were real Marxists!" you just have to concider that they interpret M-L quite differently. I happen to agree that it is an odd and false interpretation to apply the "lesser of two evils within bourgeois politics" line of thought, but the CPUSA shouldn't be completley written off within the broader movement, as they still have a decent base of people wanting to build socialism as well. That doesn't mean that we should all go join the CPUSA and promote them, but the internal battling doesn't serve much purpose.

You can argue about a party's position on some historical event or some theoretical point of how socialism should look for all eternity. But if that argument is being had while capital is still assulting the working class, it won't get very far until capital has been done away with and replaced by worker rule. They are important debates, but they shouldn't come before turly building a workers democracy.

[crashmcbean]

The CPUSA has serious ideological problems which need to be addressed. They have a long history within the labour movement and have done countless acts of heroism. However today, they are facing a problem of a revisionist leadership, which any honest Marxist-leninist, needs to combat and take back the party from the right-opportunist line.


That's what I decided to do, join the CPUSA, and I hope to make a difference. :-)

[RedScare]

I've been thinking about joining the CPUSA as well. I'm not a fan of how closely they devote themselves to the Democrats, but they must have their own strange reasons. Perhaps they hope to lure away a part of the left wing of the Democratic Party, who knows. But what really gets them for me is that they don't have an office anywhere near me, in Washington DC. PSL does. And I'm finding they look better and better. They're even taking part in amarch on the Pentagon coming up pretty soon. Lots of the other groups I've looked at have nothing of the sort going on.

My only question is how tolerate PSL is of Trots....

[Bolshevik-Leninist]

My only question is how tolerate PSL is of Trots....
PSL is a Stalinist organization, so that should answer your question.

[Kassad]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation does not directly come out and criticize Trotsky himself, though members like me will, but you will not find us advocating any of his ideologies, writings or philosophies. We follow the line of anti-revisionism, which is why we view the Russian and Chinese Revolutions favorably, as opposed to the deluded fantasies that belittle them by submitting to Western propaganda and imperialism, as well as criticizing the workers movement that these revolutions attempted to lead. Of course, deluded Trotskyists like to call us demeaning things, such as 'Stalinists,' though they are incredibly misled. I implore you to go to our website at www.PSLWeb.org (http://www.PSLWeb.org) and read some of the sections on 'Theory' and 'Fundamentals of Marxism', where you will quickly see how our line of thought is the only rational continuation of Marxism. I'm not coming in here to discuss these issues, though, so feel free to start another thread if you see it as necessary.

Though I hate to see that you have been misguided, notable Trotskyist parties in the United States are the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Equality Party, as well as the multitude of international movemets like the International Marxist Tendency.

[Lolshevik]

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but based on what some other people in this thread have said, maybe it would be possible to join the CPUSA as an internal tendency and influence it in a more revolutionary direction.

[x359594]

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but based on what some other people in this thread have said, maybe it would be possible to join the CPUSA as an internal tendency and influence it in a more revolutionary direction.

To spend one's time and energy reforming the CPUSA seems to me an unnecessary detour from the real struggle against capitalism. One might as well join a bourgeois party with the same end in view. Comrade, I don't think it's worth the trouble. Instead, if you're of a Marxist-Lennist disposition, join a party that functions like a revolutionary party according to Marxist-Lennist principles.

[crashmcbean]

Perhaps I'm being too idealistic, but based on what some other people in this thread have said, maybe it would be possible to join the CPUSA as an internal tendency and influence it in a more revolutionary direction.

As long as the party constitution is respected...certainly it's possible. And it can be done in a way that will make sense to everyone. It is the Communist Party, after all. No matter what some might think, there haven't been many Democrats joining the CPUSA. Socialists and Communists seek out membership in the CPUSA. They just lost the reins somehow.

[Lolshevik]

x359594: I'm a Marxist-Leninist with sympathy to the works of Trotsky and Luxemburg. I'm considering joining the PSL, if I can't find anyone who shares my thoughts about the Communist Party.


As long as the party constitution is respected...certainly it's possible. And it can be done in a way that will make sense to everyone. It is the Communist Party, after all. No matter what some might think, there haven't been many Democrats joining the CPUSA. Socialists and Communists seek out membership in the CPUSA. They just lost the reins somehow.

Exactly. I initially was very strongly compelled to join the CP, because of its well-developed press, its history and its ubiquity, but their pro-Democrat stance disillusioned me. Now I'm wondering if that stance is worth challenging from within.

[revolution inaction]

As long as the party constitution is respected...certainly it's possible. And it can be done in a way that will make sense to everyone. It is the Communist Party, after all. No matter what some might think, there haven't been many Democrats joining the CPUSA. Socialists and Communists seek out membership in the CPUSA. They just lost the reins somehow.

who cares what its called, its completely reactionary, and is just not communist.

[Kassad]

Any party that thinks that elections will truly make a difference, such as the United States Communist Party and their support for Obama, is not revolutionary. If anything, they are crippling the revolutionary socialist movement with idealistic and surrealist fantasies of bourgeoisie politicians making any difference. The Party for Socialism and Liberation uses elections as means of organization and education, in which they organize massive events that inform and educate the public. That is why they are consistently growing and consistently active. There is no other party in the United States with the same organization and capabilities.

[crashmcbean]

To spend one's time and energy reforming the CPUSA seems to me an unnecessary detour from the real struggle against capitalism.

I thought that way as well. I finally decided that, in the US, it's one and the same thing. The CPUSA is, and has always been, the public face of American Communism. So it's actually part of the entire struggle.


One might as well join a bourgeois party with the same end in view

Even at my angriest point - and this is an issue I've grappled with for over a decade, and as recently as last month on this thread I expressed serious doubts about the CPUSA due to it's overt Obama worship - I would not have gone that far (or maybe I did). The Communist Party has been in the forefront of the struggles for many, many years. Many heroes have come to it. Many have been severely punished by the capitalists for their work. And this part of the CPUSA is still there, it needs to be strengthened. The GOP, the Democrats? No chance. They'll never fight for the working class.


Comrade, I don't think it's worth the trouble. Instead, if you're of a Marxist-Lennist disposition, join a party that functions like a revolutionary party according to Marxist-Lennist principles.

Yes there are parties out there that at the moment certainly fit my political beliefs far more than much of what I read from the CPUSA writers. No doubt. But these parties may or may not stay the course; these other parties may or may not eventually split. They probably won't fit into the public perception of American Communism though, and they don't have the same rich legacy to back it up. That's why I feel it's critical to return Marxist-Leninist thought to the party that has stood the tallest and the longest for it.

[crashmcbean]

radicalgraffiti and Kassad both make the same excellent points that have kept me at a distance from the CPUSA. It's undeniable that reaction and capitalist political support has driven away many (and probably most) of the brilliant activists of the nation (of which I am not one, though). The goal of reform would be to first make the CPUSA at least be a party that true revolutionaries will consider again, and then re-establishing the party as Marxist-Leninist in the public mind.

[Lolshevik]

Does anyone know if the CPUSA permits internal factions within itself? There would have to be a strategy for rehabilitating the CP, if it were to be attempted.

[Jack]

CPUSA was pretty much a Moscow loyal organization. When the USSR was against Hitler they were against Hitler. When the non aggression pact was signed the CPUSA focused on peace (which made many of its Jewish members leave the party), and only supported the war when the USSR was attacked .

[Orange Juche]

Does anyone know if the CPUSA permits internal factions within itself? There would have to be a strategy for rehabilitating the CP, if it were to be attempted.

I've heard they're rather unfriendly to such actions, and try to marginalize them as much as possible.

[Jack]

"...Trotskyist parties in the United States are the Socialist Workers Party..."

I'm not so sure. Not that I'm anywhere near being a Trotskyist, but early in my communist studies (around 1991) I attended two SWP meetings that I distinctly remember, and hung out with one guy for a while talking politics. There weren't any pictures of Trotsky up at the meeting, but Che and Castro along with Lenin. Nor any mention of Trotsky. I asked my friend about that, and he said the Trotskyists were mostly long gone from the SWP and Cuba was what they were now focused on. That was a long time ago but from what I gather, they haven't changed much since then.

In the early 80's they became Castroist and abandoned Trotskyism. There's still plenty of other Trots like the Socialist Equality Party.

[Kassad]

Are we seriously using the title 'Castroist' now? Like our movement isn't already divisive and dogmatic enough.

[Jack]

Are we seriously using the title 'Castroist' now? Like our movement isn't already divisive and dogmatic enough.

I didn't make it up. Can you think of a better word for a party modeled after Castro's Cuba?

[Kassad]

I didn't make it up. Can you think of a better word for a party modeled after Castro's Cuba?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe we could call it what Castro himself calls it? Marxist-Leninist? Just a guess.

[Jack]

Trots, and Stalinists also call themselves Leninists, but dare put them in the same room.

[crashmcbean]

Trots, and Stalinists also call themselves Leninists, but dare put them in the same room.

We're all in the same rooms here at RevLeft, and we get along fairly well...
:-)

[RedScare]

The Party for Socialism and Liberation does not directly come out and criticize Trotsky himself, though members like me will, but you will not find us advocating any of his ideologies, writings or philosophies. We follow the line of anti-revisionism, which is why we view the Russian and Chinese Revolutions favorably, as opposed to the deluded fantasies that belittle them by submitting to Western propaganda and imperialism, as well as criticizing the workers movement that these revolutions attempted to lead. Of course, deluded Trotskyists like to call us demeaning things, such as 'Stalinists,' though they are incredibly misled. I implore you to go to our website at www.PSLWeb.org (http://www.PSLWeb.org) and read some of the sections on 'Theory' and 'Fundamentals of Marxism', where you will quickly see how our line of thought is the only rational continuation of Marxism. I'm not coming in here to discuss these issues, though, so feel free to start another thread if you see it as necessary.

Though I hate to see that you have been misguided, notable Trotskyist parties in the United States are the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Equality Party, as well as the multitude of international movemets like the International Marxist Tendency.Interesting. Looks like your website avoids commenting on Stalin altogether as well. I'm still intrigued though. I like Trotsky and his ideals a lot, but the sheer lack of an alternative and the fact that you guys don't seem like Stalinists is influencing me in your favor.

[crashmcbean]

RE: PSL

Interesting. Looks like your website avoids commenting on Stalin altogether as well. I'm still intrigued though. I like Trotsky and his ideals a lot, but the sheer lack of an alternative and the fact that you guys don't seem like Stalinists is influencing me in your favor.

In your original post re: the CPUSA, I somehow overlooked the Trotsky reference. I wouldn't imagine there's ever been many Trotskyists in the CPUSA. But a good many pro-Stalinists to be certain.

[Qayin]

CPUSA is epic fail

they just spent a shit load of money renovating their offices

[crashmcbean]

CPUSA is epic fail they just spent a shit load of money renovating their offices

Not exactly the Winter Palace though... :-I

[x359594]

The CPUSA is, and has always been, the public face of American Communism. So it's actually part of the entire struggle...The Communist Party has been in the forefront of the struggles for many, many years. Many heroes have come to it. Many have been severely punished by the capitalists for their work. And this part of the CPUSA is still there, it needs to be strengthened...Yes there are parties out there that at the moment certainly fit my political beliefs far more than much of what I read from the CPUSA writers. No doubt. But these parties may or may not stay the course; these other parties may or may not eventually split. They probably won't fit into the public perception of American Communism though, and they don't have the same rich legacy to back it up. That's why I feel it's critical to return Marxist-Leninist thought to the party that has stood the tallest and the longest for it.

I can't argue with your last sentence. To each his or her own, and I wish the best in your effort to reform the CPUSA.

That said, the public perception of American Communism that attaches to the CPUSA is also one of opportunism, betrayal and treachery. The present day public perception of the CPUSA is also one of irrelevance. These are severe obstacles to overcome.

[Revy]

Communist Party of the United States of America, are these guys any good? worth my time? I need something to be an anchor (like an organisation or something) what do you think?

The Communist Party USA are a bunch of liberals who support the Democratic Party. They are not socialists.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Random Precision]

It's like saying that a Democratic Senator wrote in a newspaper that he is pro-choice. Does that mean the Democratic Party represents that ideology in a dogmatic manner?

I'm not so sure you want to be comparing your own "Marxist-Leninist" organization to the Democratic Party. :laugh:

Do you guys not have such a thing as a "line"?


Though I hate to see that you have been misguided, notable Trotskyist parties in the United States are the Socialist Workers Party and the Socialist Equality Party, as well as the multitude of international movemets like the International Marxist Tendency.

The first is tiny and not Trotskyist, the second is tiny, ultra-sectarian, and focuses on its website above political activity, and the third is tiny, reformist and focuses on building a Labor Party above political activity.


CPUSA was pretty much a Moscow loyal organization. When the USSR was against Hitler they were against Hitler. When the non aggression pact was signed the CPUSA focused on peace (which made many of its Jewish members leave the party), and only supported the war when the USSR was attacked.

This is to say nothing, of course, of the actively counter-revolutionary actions they took during the war, like encouraging unions not to break the no-strike pledge.

[Wanted Man]

Well, whether it's worth to devote attention to "saving" a party like the CPUSA is a matter of analysis, not of gut feeling.

If the party still commands a lot of mass support, if it has significant and meaningful activity in the union movement, anti-war movement, etc., then I would say yes. That's why some very prominent former revisionist or Eurocommunist parties in Europe are now on the way back. Not because of conspiratory anti-revisionist "factions", but by turning back to what matters: the working class.

I have no idea if these conditions are true for the CPUSA. Maybe crashmcbean can give his perspective on that. I guess a big problem is that, while the party has had a lot of significance in the past, it seems like a bit of a shadow of its former self now. All communist parties had that problem, but many of them still had some sort of working class base, instead of just dedicated activists and revisionist careerists. I wonder what it's like with the CPUSA.

Splitting at the first sign of disagreement is obviously wrong. But sometimes it's important to see the writing on the wall. For example, the Communist Party of the Netherlands never recovered. On the contrary, the revisionist leadership liquidated the party into the left-liberal Green party. The major communist organisation, its members and assets, all disappeared into the Green party within a few years, a massive blow. The remaining non-revisionists sometimes even stuck around. After all, why suddenly start fighting revisionism concretely when you've quietly tolerated it for over a decade? Most anti-revisionists already split off before the liquidation, and at least they managed to form the foundations of the New Communist Party. While modest, that was certainly a better choice than being left empty-handed, or co-opted by the revisionists.

Obviously, I can't see what's going in in the USA from here. But if I lived there, I think I'd sooner join the PSL, already active in lots of things, than try to "save" another party that apparently needs to be "saved" before anything concrete can be done.

[crashmcbean]

>>If the party still commands a lot of mass support, if it has significant and meaningful activity in the union movement, anti-war movement, etc., then I would say yes. <<

However...
On Wednesday, on a tv program called "Glenn Beck Show" (I think it's called that), the
ultraconservative host brought on a guest to discuss...well, I'm not really sure, since there wasn't much of any discussion at all (?) ...as a representative of the American communist movement.
And who'd they bring on?

Wait for it...

Yes, you guessed right. Sam Webb of the CPUSA. And let's just say that Webb didn't exactly come on like gangbusters to make us American Communists proud.
But, forgetting that for a moment, WHY him? It's the whole point: the CPUSA is and was and probably shall be the only credible Communist party in this country as far as John Q. Public is concerned. And we gotta restore credibility before all hope is lost.
This is a difficult topic, because I can't disagree with most of the criticisms thrown at the CPUSA, indeed I agree with many of them.
In case anyone's interested...there's a link the CP put up today for the so-called
"interview", it's on their home page. cpusa.org

[Wanted Man]

However...
On Wednesday, on a tv program called "Glenn Beck Show" (I think it's called that), the
ultraconservative host brought on a guest to discuss...well, I'm not really sure, since there wasn't much of any discussion at all (?) ...as a representative of the American communist movement.
And who'd they bring on?

Wait for it...

Yes, you guessed right. Sam Webb of the CPUSA. And let's just say that Webb didn't exactly come on like gangbusters to make us American Communists proud.
But, forgetting that for a moment, WHY him? It's the whole point: the CPUSA is and was and probably shall be the only credible Communist party in this country as far as John Q. Public is concerned. And we gotta restore credibility before all hope is lost.
Well, I don't think that shows a lot. Except that bourgeois "journalism" largely relies on talking heads, supposed "representatives", etc., so that accurate information on communism in the USA is not necessary. It reminds me of one or two recent mainstream media articles with titles like "Hopeful CPUSA are coming back", where they interview a CPUSA guy who proudly presents the party's new expensive office, their funny Youtube videos, and openly admits that they want to profit from the crisis.

I'm sorry to say this, but it seems to me that the CPUSA as the only credible CP (in the eyes of the bourgeois media) doesn't matter much. To them, communism itself is synonymous with stagnation and irrelevance. And the CPUSA seem ready, willing and able to appear as representatives of this. So for the CPUSA to be seen as the representative of communism makes perfect sense, just not in the way we'd like it to be. For John Q. Public, the "only credible communist party" is more like the joke of the day.

I think this endless focussing on titles and reputations is not doing the movement any service. I would have a different view if there was some concrete stuff, actual mass work on a class basis, that sort of stuff. A strong working class party can still become revisionist, but then it is possible to fight this by falling back on that same working class. But if a party has become part of the bourgeois left lock, stock and barrel, then the perspectives are less appealing.

I don't go along with the stuff about how they're just a bunch of "useless liberals" or whatever. But for a communist party, I certainly sense a distinct lack of communist activity reported by its supporters whenever I inquire on it here. Like I said, maybe I'm completely wrong, I've never set foot in the USA and can't be 100% sure about the party's work on the ground. But still.

Anyway, here are two examples of the kind of articles that I mentioned at the beginning of this post: http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-communists-ever-t82838/index.html?t=82838&highlight=cpusa http://www.revleft.com/vb/us-communists-say-t92295/index.html?t=92295&highlight=cpusa

[crashmcbean]

>>I'm sorry to say this, but it seems to me that the CPUSA as the only credible CP (in the eyes of the bourgeois media) doesn't matter much. To them, communism itself is synonymous with stagnation and irrelevance. And the CPUSA seem ready, willing and able to appear as representatives of this. So for the CPUSA to be seen as the representative of communism makes perfect sense, just not in the way we'd like it to be. For John Q. Public, the "only credible communist party" is more like the joke of the day<<

I must disagree with your first sentence. :-) But.
The USA media doesn't see CPUSA as anything more than either laughable morons or too crazy to be Democrats. And yes a lot of it is the party's fault. Communism has never been given a fair shake by the media over here, a shameful tradition that goes back even further than the SLP. Bourgeois media indeed. They wouldn't think of Sam Webb, though, if it weren't for the Communist Party name, which goes back to their being the only credible party to the public. The citizens of the US generally know that there are other socialist parties, but they're given even less regard than the CPUSA. Not a thought at all, actually, until something bad goes down somewhere. Does the American public have socialist tendencies? Not strong enough yet. Do they generally feel the CPUSA got screwed by McCarthy? Yes, even now. The population of the country, at least most of the adults, know about the CPUSA, and noone thinks of them as villainous terrorist hoodlums anymore. When they feel ready to look into socialism, that's where they'll go. And many of them won't go anywhere else if they don't like what they see. So that's my reasoning; you see my point, I see yours too.
Everything else...is the challenge. A big one.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[redguard2009]

When I think of the CPUSA, and its sister parties (like the Communist Party of Canada), what I imagine are a bunch of people sitting around in a quiet room, with stacks of party flags in one corner, stacks of newspapers and pamphlets in another, staring intently at the front door as they wait for the moment when the people will "wake up" and come running in to embrace communism. Sure, sometimes they go outside to hollar at people passing by like a bunch of beggers, but ultimately theirs is an existence of inactivity.

The CPUSA has been sitting here for some 60 odd years now without a thing to show for it, just the old fading photographs of past good times hanging on the walls.

It's really a sad state of affairs. Sadder still because despite the complete irrelevence of their efforts, they continue on the same direction, the same course they have been on for generations. It's ture that the CPUSA is probably the only "credible" Communist Party in the US, and that's troubling. Because unless a great number of people suddenly and simeltaneously "wake up" and come running into the CPUSA's arms, there's not much to look at for the slow trickle of interested minds they get. Yeah, some young adults will look into it during their "I'm a radical 20-something" phase, spend some time, see the absolute ridiculousness of it, and move on, probably caving to the overwhelming propaganda of consumer addiction and collective selfishness plaguing our society. I can't even begin to imagine how many would-be progressives had their radicalism pounded into dust by the dreary inactivity and dismal failures of the CPUSA.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Kassad]

It's completely absurd to infer, assume or attempt to rationalize the idea that the Communist Party of the United States must be used to further the class struggle. It is a severely crippled party; filled with social democrats and liberals that advocate neo-liberal reformism, which leads to the expansion of capitalism and globalism. The party is well past its prime and it has failed time and time again to properly organize and educate the working masses.

There is literally no activism, electoral or demonstrative, performed by the Communist Party of the United States. Due to the fact that the party is incredibly divisive and irrational, it would be impossible to unify a revolutionary socialist party of the proletarian class under such reformist and bourgeoisie measures. Any party that professes support for a bourgeoisie capitalist is not revolutionary and it is certainly not socialist. In fact, the party is a sympathizer of the bourgeoisie if you ask me, as they are quick to advocate support for the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a corporate, bourgeoisie and neo-liberal machine that functions only to support the corporate elite and their agenda.

With each election, there is going to be a new means of organizing a socialist party. After a few more elections, even the party I am a part of may become irrelevant and collapse, but one thing is for certain. The Communist Party of the United States is already on the brink of collapse, as they should be. Their counterrevolutionary ideology is incredibly corrupt and divisive.

What is required in the current state of economic, political and social affairs is a party that realizes that no revolutionary change will come through elections. Elections are bourgeoisie puppet parades, but they can be used as means of education and organization. Has the Communist Party of the United States organized an anti-war coalition? A group of educators to promote the party? Any means of community organization? No. Has the Party for Socialism and Liberation? Yes, they have (www.InternationalANSWER.org (http://www.InternationalANSWER.org)).

The last thing we need is petty revisionism; the same revisionism that doomed the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union. Revisionism will doom the ideological application of Marxism-Leninism in the United States if it is allowed to and the Communist Party of the United States is advocating that same revisionism, that same reformism and that same counterrevolutionary ideology that has doomed a multitude of socialist revolutions worldwide.

The path is clear. There is no reason why anyone should profess support for a revisionist party and attempt to coerce it into becoming a strict Marxist-Leninist party when there are more active and more capable parties, such as the Party for Socialism and Liberation, that have picked up where the reformist slugs in the Communist Party left off. It's time to move forward, not backward, as many of you seem to be suggesting.

[redSHARP]

i met the CPUSA at their headquarters. they are really nice people and they were friendly and helpful (plus they gave me tons of free shit!):laugh:. however, they are not true communists. they support the Democratic party, and unless that is part of a grand scheme of theirs; which means they are not open to their members, then they are not really communist. they are low key, they are not very active in my area, and beyond that, they have no real street fighting group (not neccesary, but it adds clout and muscle for when the fascist roll through:D). they just dont seem 100% dedicated to true communism.

[el_chavista]

Originally Posted by griffjam http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1354071#post1354071)
During the cold war 1/3 of all due paying members were working for the FBI.

Later Posted by Túpac Amaru
source?

There was a TV series, "Reputations", the chapter about J. Edgar Hoover recalls how the FBI infiltrated that much the CPUSA that it seemed like a boom of new paying members. By that Hoover was justifying his statement that there was no mafia in the USA but a communist danger, although actually he was paid by the mafia when he betted in horse-stakes.

[crashmcbean]

I may not get to join the CPUSA after all. After three weeks I haven't received anything in the mail from them at all. Maybe my application wasn't received? Oh well...

[Kassad]

I may not get to join the CPUSA after all. After three weeks I haven't received anything in the mail from them at all. Maybe my application wasn't received? Oh well...

It's the world's way of telling you that you're wasting your time.

[crashmcbean]

It's the world's way of telling you that you're wasting your time.

Maybe they're not interested in new members right now, but that doesn't make any sense. Or maybe it's me...or what you said.

[Asoka89]

There isnt much room for independent class action in the electoral sphere in US politics. Democrats can be pressured with mass movements, when Repubs are in power are can only fight against the assault, we can't push back progressively like we can with a Democrat in power.

Thats the crux of the CPUSA stance, if there was a democratic system in American I'm sure they would be part of a left-electoral alliance.

[crashmcbean]

There isnt much room for independent class action in the electoral sphere in US politics. Democrats can be pressured with mass movements, when Repubs are in power are can only fight against the assault, we can't push back progressively like we can with a Democrat in power.
Thats the crux of the CPUSA stance, if there was a democratic system in American I'm sure they would be part of a left-electoral alliance.

I don't quite follow what this means. Are there no left electoral alliances in the
US..? Or the bigger question: are there any worth a damn?

[h9socialist]

The problem is that it's even sadder imagining a bonafied left-wing revolution in the U.S. This country has a long way to before that -- and the entire Left, not only those with socialist ideas, but Greens and left liberals have to be a lot stronger than they are now in order to have a chance for an Americanized version of storming the Winter Palace. I happen to think that capitalism is ripe for overthrow. And no one is more convinced of the socialist idea than me. But for it to happen, the entire American Left has to have its act together. I see no point in ridiculing the CP for not having delivered the revolution since 1919 with Jack Reed and Louie Fraina. Neither has any other left-wing movement in the USA (whether socialist or communist or anarchist). But factionalism has always been the poison of the American Left -- and it is the main reason why we are not further along toward the revolution. I am convinced that the entire spectrum from liberals to progressives to greens to socialists to communists to anarchists all have a part to play. In that regard the approaches of CPUSA, Solidarity, CCDS, DSA and the Socialist Party are quite logical. And if a more militant overthrow of capitalism begins, the comrades in those organizations will be vital to the future.

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[crashmcbean]

Apply again, and say "Why hasn't anyone contacted me?" Sometimes even in my Club we accidentally miss things or maybe they didn't have a club meeting yet to discuss or maybe theres no club in your area. But regardless some one should contact you. or contact someone and say your interested in the party

I actually sent a message off to the closest section last Tuesday. If I'm not contacted I'll reapply Friday.

[Buster Flynn]

If you don't think activist-ghetto is the way to change anything, the CPUSA might be a good fit. They use a fancier formulation than 'popular front' these days, but that's approximately the strategy. If you want to meet people where they're at, instead of waiting around for them to be radicals first, it's not the worst idea around...

[Janine Melnitz]

It's amazing to see soi-disant Leninists defending the CPUSA on the basis of its history, size and "credibility". These arguments applied just as well (in fact they applied much better, especially where "credibility" is concerned) to the Second International. Wasn't the break from the SI precisely what inaugurated Leninism proper?

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[Janine Melnitz]

And a vote for Obama isn't a vote for imperialist war?

[Charles Xavier]

blank

[PoWR]

The CPUSA has all but renounced communism. It has abandoned a key principle of communism: independence of the working class from its exploiters, in favor of backing an out and out bourgeois party with a history of labor smashing and war mongering in the name of "fighting the right."

As for "going to people" you're not going to have to much luck. Unless by "the people" you mean democratic socialists and some washed up USSR worshipers.

The CPUSA no longer has any connection to organized labor (it was driven out in the 50's by the same forces it supported during WWII, the job was completed in the 60's) or any real roots among the working class.

[ellipsis]

Communist Party of the United States of America, are these guys any good? worth my time? I need something to be an anchor (like an organisation or something) what do you think?

You would be better off working with comrades in vermont like myself to radicalize local politics.

[redSHARP]

The CPUSA has all but renounced communism. It has abandoned a key principle of communism: independence of the working class from its exploiters, in favor of backing an out and out bourgeois party with a history of labor smashing and war mongering in the name of "fighting the right."

As for "going to people" you're not going to have to much luck. Unless by "the people" you mean democratic socialists and some washed up USSR worshipers.

The CPUSA no longer has any connection to organized labor (it was driven out in the 50's by the same forces it supported during WWII, the job was completed in the 60's) or any real roots among the working class.


not entirely true. they still own their fiefdom in NYC. they are still active supporting groups, but yeah they are out of touch.

[STJ]

The CPUSA is a joke. All they tell people todo is vote for the Democratic Party.

[Uppercut]

I don't really like the CPUSA. I thought about joining but i can't stand how they suck up to the democrats. I can understand this, somewhat, but they're throwing their own ideas away and going capitalists.

On the other hand, I am a member of the Young People's Socialist league (part of the SPUSA) They actually advocate their own candidates for local and national elections. This year, we supported Brian Moore for president.

[Kassad]

I don't really like the CPUSA. I thought about joining but i can't stand how they suck up to the democrats. I can understand this, somewhat, but they're throwing their own ideas away and going capitalists.

On the other hand, I am a member of the Young People's Socialist league (part of the SPUSA) They actually advocate their own candidates for local and national elections. This year, we supported Brian Moore for president.

Except for the fact that Socialist Party USA believes change can come through bourgeois elections. Socialist Party USA is not a communist or revolutionary socialist organization. It is a social-democratic party that propagates a reformist line. If that's what you support, then yeah, they're for you, but if you're working for revolution, you are with the wrong organization.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Care to back your assertion with a source? :confused:

Unless they have explicitly stated so, they could be running in elections for the same reasons your party is: just to get heard.

[Kassad]

http://vote-socialist.org/


Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives. The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change. While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future. When a majority we will rapidly introduce socialist reforms, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control. We support electoral action independent of the capitalist-controlled two-party system.

[KurtFF8]

How exactly is that social democratic? Social democrats reject worker ownership as a goal and believe in just asserting labor's power through the capitalist system, yet maintaining the system. The SPUSA seeks, regardless of how effective you think their strategy is, to abolish the capitalist mode of production and replace it with a system based on worker ownership.

Running in elections shouldn't be an indication of how "reformist" a party is, especially coming from a PSL member.

[Kassad]

It doesn't matter if a party claims to be revolutionary or anything of the sort. The term 'social-democracy' doesn't necessarily mean that it's opposed to socialism, but it can support the furthering of class struggle as a means of obtaining slow-enacting reforms that alter the capitalist system so much that it becomes "socialist", in their definition. Socialist Party USA, as far as I can tell, isn't advocating an uprising of the working class. They are advocating 'democratic revolution.'


People across the world need to cast off the systems which oppress them, and build a new world fit for all humanity. Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government.
Source: http://socialistparty-usa.org/principles.html

This, though thinly veiled by the page's description of revolutionary and fundamental change, shows that Socialist Party USA isn't calling for the destruction of the bourgeois state. That, combined with my earlier source in which their party states that 'once they are a majority' they will enact socialist reforms, shows that they have no desire in advocating or striving for revolutionary socialism. They want to get people elected in the capitalist system and make change from the inside. That isn't revolutionary and it surely is not Marxist. Therefore, if someone is looking for a party working for revolution and support for Marxism, they should not be looking into Socialist Party USA. They should be looking into the Party for Socialism and Liberation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://vote-socialist.org/


Socialists participate in the electoral process to present socialist alternatives.

Nothing wrong in the first sentence.


The Socialist Party does not divorce electoral politics from other strategies for basic change.

Nothing wrong here, either.


While a minority, we fight for progressive changes compatible with a socialist future.

OK, the paragraph is very vague on the usual reformist strategy of coalitionism (either formal coalitionism within governments or de facto coalitionism through propping up "confidence") (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/618/McNair%20-%20Strategy3.htm).


When a majority we will rapidly introduce socialist reforms, with priority to the elimination of the power of big business through public ownership and workers' control.

OK, the word "reforms" does raise a number of alarm bells, since the words "rapid" and "reform" tend to be contradictory. They should have said "measures." In addition, they should have stated the words "minority" and "majority" on the basis of direct support of the workers (increased class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness), irrespective of electoral results (since the support can easily come from alien classes).


We support electoral action independent of the capitalist-controlled two-party system.

Again, it needs to be clearer on the question of coalitionism.

[marxistcritic]

What is anyone's opinion on Sam Webb?:confused:

[Revy]

What is anyone's opinion on Sam Webb?:confused:

A cult leader.

Just like Jack Barnes, David North, Bob Avakian, and others.

Sam Webb in particular just so happens to advance support for the Democratic Party within some kind of warped version of "Leninism". Given the authoritarian nature of the CPUSA, it is not a surprise that everyone in it accepted these politics.

[Kassad]

Well, Jacob, the fact that it 'needs to be clearer' should make it apparent that Socialist Party USA is not a Marxist or a communist party. It is not striving for revolution, but merely working towards socialist reforms, which is not a revolutionary means of liberation. I believe different forms of reformism have seen their victories, notably in Venezuela, but in an exploiter nation; an imperialist nation that manipulates the world's resources and people for profit and exploitation, reformism does not stand a chance against the bourgeoisie. The only means of liberation will come through a revolutionary party and organization of the proletariat. Socialist Party USA is working for democratic reforms and they are vague in their platform because they are veiling their reformist nature. There is nothing revolutionary about them.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll leave comrade Eco-Marxist to address your remarks and mine. :)

[manic expression]

A cult leader.

You think so? If that's true, he's got to be the LEAST charismatic cult leader in history. What a joke.


but in an exploiter nation; an imperialist nation that manipulates the world's resources and people for profit and exploitation, reformism does not stand a chance against the bourgeoisie. The only means of liberation will come through a revolutionary party and organization of the proletariat.

This deserves repeating.

Also, IMO, one of the reasons reformism has had the opportunities it's had in Latin America might be due to the fact that US imperialism is so preoccupied with other projects at the moment, notably Iraq and Afghanistan. If it wasn't, I think we would see situations (and outcomes) similar to Chile in 1973 or Guatemala in 1953.

[Revy]

Well, the Socialist Party USA is not Leninist, or even Marxist, but it is revolutionary. We do not identify officially with Marxism because we prefer to be multi-tendency in nature. We do not adhere to a strict and rigid ideology. There are criticisms to be made, and these criticisms are often brought up by the members themselves. The Socialist Party USA has had several ideological shifts, but has in the past few years been heading in a radical and revolutionary direction. There are very few social democrats left - they in fact left on their own accord because they didn't like the fact that genuine socialists were becoming a supermajority, blocking their ability to take it over and ruin it.

Our position on elections is clear and has been made clear. We run to advance to the cause of socialism, we hold no illusions in getting elected.

I don't have much negative things to say about PSL - except to say that just because a nation is threatened with imperialism, you shouldn't ignore the faults of its government. Their supposedly positive view of the North Korean government is always brought up whenever PSL is brought up - I am not saying that you have that view - but that's your reputation. If not for the fact that I am a supporter of the Socialist Party USA, I would have gladly voted for La Riva and I would always mention her alongside our candidate. I wanted the votes for socialist parties to all have a better showing. So really, you don't need to think of this as some kind of competition. I will accept honest criticisms of the SPUSA but you're being hysterical here. We do not have an anti-Leninist bias either. I think though, that obviously, Stalinism wouldn't be well received.

[Kassad]

Look, I understand that you, yourself, do not have to be some kind of dogmatic preacher that defends every word of your party's line, but your argument literally has no foundation. I know you are a revolutionary Marxist, but your party is not revolutionary, nor is it Marxist. From the sources I've cited, Socialist Party USA is in support of 'democratic revolution', which is generally synonymous with reformist activities and widespread change through the electoral process. Your party also states in its platform that it will, 'when a majority', make widespread social reforms that place power in the hands of the working class.

That's reformist. That's the definition of reformism. Getting elected and making minor changes until the capitalist system has been altered so much that it becomes socialism. I'm glad to hear that your party is wising up to revolutionary socialism, but as of right now, there is not one thing on the Socialist Party USA website that supports and claims to strive for communism, Marxism or a workers revolution. It is all about petty reformism and 'democratic revolution.' You claim that your party holds 'no illusions' as to getting elected, yet they still state that when they are a majority, they will enact widespread socialist reforms. There is no real part of the platform that says that they will work towards the destruction of the bourgeois state in favor of a workers state.

I'm not being hysterical and it's totally redundant and absurd to assert that I am. I'm merely pointing out that you joining Socialist Party USA is a living contradiction. Instead of working with other Marxist parties, you're working with a reformist party that has no real plan for socialist change, aside from reforming capitalism through electoral victory in the legislative system. They take an incredibly bourgeois and reformist stance in their plan for socialist revolution and that should be addressed so that we don't hinder the socialist movement with misleading, reformist and social-democratic parties, and instead offer real Marxist alternatives to bourgeois tyranny.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Kassad, Lenin's party model was the pre-war Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, specifically the tendency organized by August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and Karl Kautsky.